News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Agelbert NOTE: If the Democrats are smart, they will push multiple bills thorugh the House of Representatives EVERY MONTH, which INCREASE the tax credit for EVs to $20,000 with NO CAP on the number of vehicles AND allow people with less than that amount of annual income tax to take the remaining credit in subsequent tax years. As it stands now with the $7,500 tax credit, only the wealthy who pay $7,500 or more a year in taxes can get the full tax credit because the law was stupidly (or cleverly 😈, if you are a fossil fueler) written to allow the credit to be used in only one tax year.

Yeah, the GOP 🦕🦖 Senate 🙉 🙊 would stop all these bills in their tracks. BUT, National attention would be publicized hither and yon to the FACT that subsidizing EVs so the average person can buy one would

1. IMPROVE the HEALTH of Americans by IMPROVING air quality for humans AND myriad species in the biosphere, AND

All the blocking and whining about "funding" by the Fossil Fuel Fascists 🐉🦕🦖 in the Senate would cast the GOP in the well deserved role of the enemy of we-the-people AND the Biosphere.

REMEMBER that the GOP Bastards, when they controlled the House of Representatives, tried 70 TIMES over EIGHT YEARS, to destroy the A.C.A. they deliberately, with malice aforethought, demonized as "Obamacare". If they could do that EVIL 70 TIMES, the least the Democratic Party can do is 70 attempts TO PASS $20,000 EV TAX CREDIT GOOD LEGISLATION.

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy Inventionssuppressing, Climate Trashing, human healthdepleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!

Posted by: AGelbert

Koch Industries is calling for the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles (EVs), all while claiming that it does not oppose plug-in cars and inviting the elimination of oil and gas subsidies that the petroleum conglomerate and its industry peers receive.

Outgoing Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller introduced a bill in September that would lift the sales cap on electric vehicles eligible for a federal tax credit, and replace the cap with a deadline that would dictate when the credit would start being phased out.

Under the current tax credit for EVs, once a manufacturer sells 200,000 EVs in the U.S. the amount of the credit gets slashed in half, then halved again. The full credit amount is $7,500. Tesla has already hit the 200,000 cap and GM will soon reach it, so both companies would benefit from a tax credit extension via eliminating the sales cap. Heller's bill lifts the 200,000 vehicle limit and substitutes a phase-out period starting in 2022.

But the conservative senator's bill is facing opposition from the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

In a letter to senators dated Oct. 24, Koch Industries lobbyist Philip Ellender urges opposition to the expansion of EV tax credits through 2022. Ellender claims that the tax credits primarily benefit wealthy consumers and that subsidization interferes with "innovation and consumer choice."

The letter cites two studies, each by a right-wing think tank. One study comes from the Pacific Research Institute, which has received fossil fuel funding—including more than $1.7 million from Koch-related foundations and $615,000 from ExxonMobil. The PRI study, "Costly Subsidies for the Rich: Quantifying the Subsidies Offered to Battery Electric Powered Cars," emphasizes that "the majority of the dollar benefits from energy and electric car subsidies are paid to tax filers in the higher income tax brackets."

The other study is from the Manhattan Institute, another "free market think tank" that takes in money from the Koch network and Exxon. The study paints a misleading picture of EVs and their subsidies.

In addition to citing biased studies by groups tied to Koch money, Ellender claims in the letter, "We do not oppose electric vehicles."

This sentiment echoes the company's 2016 advertorial, in which Koch Industries claimed to be "all for electric vehicles."

Ellender also claims that Koch Industries is against any and all energy subsidies, even ones that benefit the company. According to the letter:

Instead of expanding this subsidy for wealthy EV owners, Congress should eliminate it along with all other energy incentives—including eliminating any incentives given to us and our competitors where we may participate. We are focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls.In reality, while Koch Industries is claiming publicly to support ending fossil fuel subsidies (along with EV and clean energy incentives), Koch lobbyists have long worked to ensure that the petroleum industry continues to get subsidized.

As Koch vs. Clean previously pointed out, "In a detailed 2011 report on Koch Industries, the Center for Public Integrity wrote: 'Oil is the core of the Koch business empire, and the company's lobbyists and officials have successfully fought to preserve the industry's tax breaks and credits.' The report documented that Koch lobbyists have worked to preserve billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies, including the Section 199 manufacturing tax deduction and the 'last-in, first out' accounting rule."

In fact, according to the International Business Times, Koch Industries has itself directly secured subsidies totaling more than $195 million.

The Koch network also lobbied for the Trump tax cuts that became law late last year. The corporate tax cut is not specific to energy, but it benefits giant corporations including Big Oil and Koch Industries nonetheless. Americans for Tax Fairness estimated that the Kochs would save more than $1 billion just this year from the tax cut—a significant windfall for a corporate behemoth that claims, "Weare focused on long-term value creation, not short-term windfalls."

Agelbert NOTE: If the Democrats are smart, they will push multiple bills thorugh the House of Representatives EVERY MONTH, which INCREASE the tax credit for EVs to $20,000 with NO CAP on the number of vehicles AND allow people with less than that amount of annual income tax to take the remaining credit in subsequent tax years. As it stands now with the $7,500 tax credit, only the wealthy who pay $7,500 or more a year in taxes can get the full tax credit because the law was stupidly (or cleverly 😈, if you are a fossil fueler) written to allow the credit to be used in only one tax year.

Yeah, the GOP 🦕🦖 Senate 🙉 🙊 would stop all these bills in their tracks. BUT, National attention would be publicized hither and yon to the FACT that subsidizing EVs so the average person can buy one would

1. IMPROVE the HEALTH of Americans by IMPROVING air quality for humans AND myriad species in the biosphere, AND

2. Help mitigate Climate Change, making it COST EFFECTIVE.

All the blocking and whining about "funding" by the Fossil Fuel Fascists 🐉🦕🦖 in the Senate would cast the GOP in the well deserved role of the enemy of we-the-people AND the Biosphere.

REMEMBER that the GOP Bastards, when they controlled the House of Representatives, tried 70 TIMES over EIGHT YEARS, to destroy the A.C.A. they deliberately, with malice aforethought, demonized as "Obamacare". If they could do that EVIL 70 TIMES, the least the Democratic Party can do is 70 attempts TO PASS $20,000 EV TAX CREDIT GOOD LEGISLATION.

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy Inventionssuppressing, Climate Trashing, human healthdepleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!

Posted by: AGelbert

Tesla announced a new chairwoman to replace Elon Musk in a settlement with the SEC. Harley-Davidson commits to building its electric Livewire motorcycle. Nissan shows off a rescue truck with two Nissan Leaf batteries for backup power. And we consider the Tesla Model 3 as a contender for our 2019 Best Car To Buy award. All this and more on Green Car Reports.

✔ Tesla named Robyn Denholm, one of its two current independent directors, as its new chairwoman. She replaces Elon Musk, who had to step aside following an SEC settlement over a tweet he made in August. Musk will remain as chief executive officer.

✔ Four years after taking a concept electric motorcycle on tour, Harley-Davidson announced it will build the motorcycle it calls ⚡ Livewire next year.

✔ Backup batteries can be just the thing for emergency rescue operations, and that's that Nissan built, albeit still diesel-powered, to show at the São Paulo Motor Show. The Frontier Sentinel uses two Nissan Leaf batteries in the bed to provide at least a day's worth of auxiliary power to homes or businesses that have been cut off.

✔ After missing out last year because of the car's slow ramp-up, the Tesla Model 3 makes our list of contenders for our Best Car To Buy competition for 2019.

✔ Italian boutique coachbuilder Ares plans to build a roadster based on the Tesla Model S. Unlike earlier four-door chop-top versions of the Model S, Ares' version looks like a sleek two-door coupe.

✔ Finally, following in GM's footsteps with its new bike, Ford bought electric-scooter sharing business Spin, to help ride-sharing commuters get the last mile or two to their destinations.

According to Bartman and team, Tesla didn’t fit that bill in 2015, but was better considered as a sustaining innovation. As Bartman concluded:

Quote

“… because it’s a sustaining innovation, theory predicts that competitors will emerge. Our analysis concludes that a competitive response won’t happen until Tesla expands outside its current niche of people who prefer electric vehicles to gas-powered cars—but if it expands by creating more variety (such as SUVs) and more-affordable vehicles, competition will be fierce.”

Posted by: AGelbert

Agelbert NOTE: Hydrogen fuel cell powered trucks are included in this news about Electric ⚡ Trucks.

COMPANY NEWSOCTOBER 22, 2018 / 10:00 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO

RPT-Truck makers rev up for rollout of electric ⚡ big rigs

By Nick Carey

DETROIT, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk put electric heavy commercial trucks on the map in November 2017 when he unveiled the company’s futuristic, battery-powered Semi, booked hundreds of orders and said he would start delivering the vehicles by 2019.

Now, it looks like 2020 could be the big year for electric ⚡ big rigs. Incumbent truck makers are accelerating their electric truck projects toward launches that year, while Musk told investors in June production of the eye-catching Semi freight hauler should begin “basically (in the) first half of 2020” instead of 2019.

Driven by regulatory pressure to cut diesel pollution, commercial truck makers have made a flurry of fresh announcements to deliver battery electric or hydrogen-fueled vehicles. They have landed orders from big fleet operators such as Walmart Inc, United Parcel Service Inc and Anheuser Busch Inbev NV.

The challenge is gauging how big the market for electric commercial trucks will be, especially outside of China.

The limited range of most first-generation electric or hydrogen commercial trucks and a lack of charging infrastructure threaten to limit sales to short-haul operations.

In China, regulators are considering a long-term plan to replace 1 million diesel big rigs with cleaner trucks, including electric models, and some Chinese ports and cities are banning diesel trucks, which could significantly boost sales.

In the United States, the outlook for electric truck demand is cloudier. Some analysts estimate that by the mid-2020s, U.S. annual electric truck sales may number only in the hundreds. Over the last 12 months, North American diesel and so-called semitruck orders totaled 497,000 units.

Toyota Motor Corp’s experience at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach illustrates the potential, and the problems for clean truck technology.

Toyota’s working hydrogen fuel-cell truck

The first of Toyota’s working hydrogen fuel-cell trucks was designed with a 200-mile (322 km) range for daily operations and has already logged more than 10,000 miles running short routes around the ports.

The newer second iteration has a 300-mile range but that is still well short of the 1,000 miles or more diesel trucks can run between refueling stops.

Toyota has not provided a production timeline, but executive program manager Chris Rovik said “so far we feel confident the technology is absolutely applicable to this type of use case.”

“CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM”

Fueling infrastructure is a major headache for electric and hydrogen trucks.

Hyundai Motor Co commercial vehicle director Mark Freymueller describes a chicken-and-egg problem: Trucking companies are reluctant to buy trucks without fueling stations, but fuel station operators will not install them without trucking customers.

Battery electric trucks can take hours to recharge and charging stations are scarce in most U.S. states. Hydrogen trucks can be refueled in about the same time as a diesel truck - but hydrogen refueling stations are even rarer, with most concentrated in California.

“Fueling infrastructure is a very important first step,” said Chris Cannon, chief sustainability officer for the Port of Los Angeles. “The trucks may work great, but if they can’t get any fuel they can’t operate.”

Last month, the California Air Resources Board announced $41 million in grants to the port toward building 10 new hydrogen fuel-cell electric trucks to be developed by Toyota and Paccar Inc unit Kenworth. The grant will also partly-fund two new hydrogen fuel stations to be built by Royal Dutch Shell Plc .

Most manufacturers see short-haul routes such as drayage services to or from ports or rail yards as likely first adopters of electric or hydrogen trucks.

“We think the first applications are going to be shorter haul,” said Denny Mooney, Navistar International Corp’s vice president of engineering. “We’re going to start out where the business makes sense.”

Tesla customers like Deutsche Post unit DHL, which has ordered 10 Semis, say they could save tens of thousands of dollars on maintenance and fuel annually.

CEO Musk says the Semi’s range could hit 600 miles. But a spokesperson said running uphill with air conditioning on or running other appliances would cut that range. Many modern 18-wheelers contain televisions, fridges and other appliances.

Package delivery giant UPS has pre-ordered 125 Tesla Semis and will use them on daily routes hauling packages between hubs and on UPS Freight routes between businesses - mostly shorter routes.

“In many ways we are ideally suited to be an early adopter of this technology because we don’t have much long-haul business,” said UPS spokesman Glenn Zaccara.

Tesla is working with potential customers including UPS, Pepsico and Anheuser-Busch to build charging stations at their facilities.

Nikola Motor Co, a startup offering a fuel cell truck, has ambitious multibillion-dollar plans to build 700 U.S. hydrogen fueling stations over the next decade, starting along the major routes of Anheuser-Busch, which has ordered up to 800 trucks, says CEO Trevor Milton. Nikola has secured funding for those stations, he said.

The Groupe PSA, which includes Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, and Vauxhall, has had its hands full after acquiring Opel and Vauxhall. The transition hasn’t been as smooth as expected and now the company is facing legacy emission problems after a fiery French newspaper revelation.

In the end, it seems that what motivates giant corporations to make the right decision in line with society’s best interest is not to do the “right thing” nor to be part of the solution, but how much money they stand to lose by pursuing a given direction.

The original impetus to launch Diesel big time for cars was that after the first oil crisis B&W launched motor technology for the shipping industry that could run on the cheaper and filthier bunker oil. This made Diesel an excess fraction.

Big oil rounded the car industry and EU up and they all agreed to launch Diesel for cars as a way to support big oil.

All European countries kept Diesel taxation down and Diesel for touted as more efficient and thus environmentally benign than gasoline.

Also to further press Diesel car technology down the throat of the ordinary car buyers the new car taxation began to be tied to CO2 emissions, which as everybody now knows are never really attainable in real life.

Along the way EU also imposed a demand for catalyzers. They do not function at all for most trips and they rarely last for mere than 100.000 km, so most driving are done with no effect from the catalyzers say for the benign effect for big oil that the catalyzer increase consumption by 10%.

EU has systematically rigged the scene for big oil and the car industry have been happy with the going of things in lieu with the fact that there never where any serious EU investigation going on regarding emissions so they could meet the emission standards with phony software and get permission for not meeting standards below certain ambient temperature (17 degrees Celsius).

Now the car industry is upset that they are to blame while all the time everybody else have been in on the plot.

agelbert> Jens StubbeEXCELLENT comment!

Thank you 💐 Jense Stubbe.

Posted by: AGelbert

September 2018 EV SALES will be reported on Tuesday, October 2, 2018, beginning with GM’s quarterly report, Toyota Prius Prime, and Nissan LEAF sales at 6:30-7:30 AM PT (9:30-10:30 AM ET) and continuing with Ford and other automakers into the remainder of the week.

If you’d like to access any of our previous monthly report cards, click herefor the full archive.

Every month InsideEVs tracks all the plug-in EV sales/deliveries for the United States by automaker and brand. Below, readers can find all the historical EV sales charts for the “current generation” of electric vehicles. Keep in mind that the words sales and deliveries are synonymous. In order for a car to count as SOLD, it has to be paid in full or leased and be in the possession of the consumer.

I own eight shares of Tesla stock. When I started writing this article a month ago, I had four shares. I have since doubled my position to a whopping eight. I feel like Tesla is in a position similar to where Amazon was about 15 years ago. There were real questions then if Amazon would ever make money to justify its valuation. Amazon could have gone bankrupt and an investor back then would have lost it all. Instead, a $1,000 investment in Amazon would be worth $40,000 today.

I bought my eight shares assuming there is a chance they will continue to skyrocket in the future, and if so, a potential $80,000 value in the future would be worth what was about a $2,000 risk today.

When I started writing this, I had a Model 3 on order. I now have that Model 3. Simply put, as someone who used to do a lot of accounting, I have grown to hate the volatility of gas prices and auto repairs on monthly budgeting. At the same time, my previous car was quite clearly in need of replacement.

At this point, the Model 3 is the only electric car that has the ability to solve my gas price volatility problems while being able to serve as our primary long range car. If another manufacturer had a nationwide charging network, I’d be all ears. None do.

I’d like the company to continue, but I don’t think I’ll be materially affected in either way if it doesn’t. If I lose the price I paid for the stock, I’ll be okay. If suddenly the company went bankrupt, enough Model 3s have been sold and enough demand exists that I believe they will be maintained. I might not get software updates, but that’s fine.

Now, having said that, we are in that period between Q3 and the Q3 call where we tend to have a flood of articles written about Tesla. Here are some handy things to remember:

I think it is time for intelligent people to start discussing the high probability that Tesla willl soon buy Ford. Yes, that may seem ridiculous to some. However, it is far more rational when you look at automotive manufacturer history in the USA (Hudson, DeSoto, etc.).

Also, model names within large manufacturers (e.g. Ford's Edsel, GM's LaSalle) have gone the way of the Dodo Bird, so what people call "Ford" or "GM" today is NOT what they have always been.

It is quite feasable and rational to picture Tesla absorbing Ford, who's stock continues to plummet with massive layoffs now proposed. Tesla could then set up a hybrid option on ALL Ford models (running exclusively on E100 hydrous ethanol ONLY, NOT GASOLINE), which would seal the fate of Big Oil good and proper. 😀

Within a decade, all those models would be pure electric, while forcing a law change in the USA. What do I mean by that? 🤔

You see, even though flex-fuel cars in Brazil have run on E100 (NO GASOLINE CONTENT 🌞 WHATSOEVER) quite well for DECADES now, Big Oil continues to publish baloney propaganda about ethanol "engine damage, water absorption issues" and other assorted (convenient to Big Oil profits 😈) scaremongering. They are all half truths at most.. The most corrosive, engine harming liquid fuel out there is GASOLINE (that polluting witches brew of long and short chained hydrocarbons mixed with a bunch of stabilizer chemicals Big Oil doesn't doesn't want to talk about).

Pure ethanol has ALWAYS been a far better fuel for ICE vehicles than gasoline. Big Oil knows that, so they have been pro-active in doing all they can to make sure we don't AND keeping E100 out of reach of Americans. How so⁉️

Decades ago, Big Oil 🦖 made SURE that E100 (hydrous AND anhydrous) cannot be manufactured as fuel in the USA by getting our corrupted government to pass a law to that effect (the "fuel grade" BULLSHIT).

agelbert > A “Rebot” B 🦕 How did Chrysler survive when it was bankrupt?

As long as Tesla is making a superior product, they will increase their Good Will (i.e. the term used in financial accounting statements) among bankers, who consequently would be willing to loan Tesla the money to buy Ford.

If you are trying to make a case that Tesla's Debt to Equity ratio will prevent banks from providing a massive loan to buy Ford, then I think you need to study Citigroup, General Electric, Chrysler, AIG, etc. ALL of them were nearly or totally insolvent. Yet ,they are still there, aren't they?

Why then, do you see Tesla, a company that actually DOES know how to increase company worth with a great product (by investing revenue back into plant and equipment instead of stock buybacks and huge CEO salaries and golden parachutes), unlike the financial funny farms like Citigroup and AIG (never mind GE and GM wanting to make money from loans instead of quality products!)?

If there is one corporation out there that actually KNOWS what Socially Responsible Successful Corporate Behavior (a contradiction in terms for "fiduciary responsibility requirement" BULLSHIT Wall Street Fascist/Capitalists) IS, it is Tesla. ✨

Any large bank that understands how doomed polluting vehicles are knows that EVs are the future and Tesla is the leading edge of that future. Loaning Tesla money to buy Ford is an EXCELLENT investment opportunity for any Bank.

GO TESLA!

Richard This is exactly why seeking alpha is such a bogus site . It is so easily manipulated by dark forces.

This site is completely discredited by the crap it has spewed on Tesla over the years. What other crap has it been spewing?

Seeking Alpha is a total waste of internet space. I think most people have come to that conclusion.

Chris O > RichardTo be fair a even publication like the New York Times has been an anti Tesla FUD leader ever since John Broder's infamous 2012 review of the Model S.

Not sure what it is about Tesla that rubs NYT the wrong way or maybe it's just the popularity of anti-Tesla hit pieces that sets the tone but when it comes to Tesla you will find that NYT and SA suddenly have remarkably similar journalistic standards. In fact NYT actually quotes SA anti-Tesla FUD specialists.

Agelbert > Chris OI'm sure what it is about Tesla that rubs NYT "wrong". Big Oil goes bankrupt if EVs become mainstream in the USA (and the world). The NYT has always defended Big Oil interests, otherwise known in our corrupted country as "national security", including wars for oil everywhere.

Big Oil cannnot make a profit from refining crude oil unless they sell the lion's share of the refined product (gasoline, diesel and gas). If Big Oil had to rely exclusively on making money from selling lubricants and feed stock for plastics, fertilizers, etc., they would go bankrupt because those products are less that 15% of what comes out of the cracking towers in a refinery.

Big Oil is out to get Tesla because Tesla is a MASSIVE THREAT to Big Oil's profit over people and planet business model.

Posted by: AGelbert

Fuel prices reached a four-year high last month, concentrating consumers’ minds on the relative costs of internal combustion versus electric motors. For companies preparing to bring a record number of electric and hybrid models to market in 2019, oil’s rally could turbocharge demand.

“The higher the price of oil the more tailwind we’re going to have behind electric ⚡ cars,” Carlos Ghosn, chairman of Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co., said at the Paris Motor Show on Wednesday.

Mercedes-Benz Trucks has launched a 2-year customer trial that will see its new eActros trucks put into the daily rotation with key customers.

The first batch of the fully electric Mercedes-Benz eActros trucks will go to a long-time Mercedes-Benz partner, logistics provider Hermes, as the first of 20 customers that will put the trucks into use in a variety of applications and industries over 2 years.

“The practical trials with the eActros are an important milestone on the way to series production,” noted Stefan Buchner, Head of Mercedes-Benz Trucks. “We want to use the comprehensive findings to realise electric trucks for inner-city distribution from 2021.”

The trial is increasingly timely as many cities, states and countries establish zero-emission targets. Cities across Europe, like Stuttgart in Germany, have already implemented selective bans on older diesel vehicles that restrict entry into the heart of the city. Switching to fully electric vehicles like the eActros would allow logistics providers to continue to operate without being impacted by the new restrictions.

The trial will cycle 18- and 25-ton versions of Mercedes-Benz’s eActros into normal operations for a full year to assess the potential and drawbacks of the vehicles in the real world. The trials will last 1 year each, with 10 customers in the first year and 10 customers participating in the second year of trials, to maximize the exposure the vehicles get to different industries and the customers get to the vehicles.

The new eActros electric truck comes with a 200-kilometer range per charge, which should allow it to meet many daily driving activities for the customers in the trial. Local deliveries are an easy win as are regional point-to-point deliveries where charging can be arranged at or near the end of the route. Most providers will look to utilize the trucks on routes where charging can take place overnight at the depot, with more routes tested as they get familiar with its capabilities, especially with different load profiles.

Hermes, for example, is looking to test one of the 25-ton eActros trucks along one of its usual 50-kilometer routes from a critical logistics center in Friedewald. It’s a hilly route that they run 6 or 8 times per day, which will really put the range and charging capabilities of the eActros to the test. Load hauling capabilities are also of particular interest as trucking companies explore the impact of different types of loads on different terrain.

Hermes’ head of central procurement in Germany, Oliver Lanka, shared that, “Electromobility is an essential component of our sustainability strategy. We have set ourselves the ambitious goal of making our deliveries in all urban centres in Germany emission-free by 2025. Alongside the use of battery-electric vans over the last mile, the gradual electrification of heavy-duty distribution and feeder transport is an important topic for us. We are working together closely with Mercedes-Benz Trucks in this area. Both the technological concept of the eActros and the end-to-end service approach plus the level of advice have impressed us.”

Posted by: AGelbert

Luxury carmaker Porsche will no longer produce cars with diesel engines and will instead focus on expanding its product range with electric or hybrid vehicles, the German company has said in a press release. Porsche said it did not want to “demonise” diesel engines and that it would continue to care for the diesel cars it had already sold, but that it had “come to the conclusion that we would like our future to be diesel-free.”

Porsche said it has not had a diesel in its portfolio since February of 2018. The company added that it will introduce its first fully electric car in 2019, and that by 2025 half of its products could be e-cars. 👍

Posted by: AGelbert

Electric For All Campaign From Volkswagen — 10 Million EVs Based On MEB Platform

September 19th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Volkswagen officially launched its “Electric For All” campaign this week with the official introduction of its MEB platform. The platform system is the heart and soul of modern automobile manufacturing. The platform is where the powertrain, suspension, brakes, and other vital components all come together.

Volkswagen MEB platform

Regardless of what bodywork the manufacture chooses to wrap around it — sedan, hatchback, SUV, or minivan — the platform is the same for all of them, which leads to substantially lower manufacturing costs. On electric cars, the platform is often referred to as a skateboard. It consists of a battery mounted low in the chassis between the wheels. Companies can make it longer or shorter as market demands require, but the basic architecture remains the same.

At a press presentation in Dresden this week, VW gave members of the press an opportunity to see the MEB skateboard without the bodywork that will surround it in a completed automobile. The company says it expects this platform to be the basis for 27 electric models from all its divisions by 2025. In total, it says 10 million vehicles will use the MEB architecture in the years to come. Production of the first ID branded electric cars will begin at the factory in Zwickau about a year from now.

The MEB is an important development for Volkswagen, as it seeks to make electric cars for millions of mainstream drivers. VW board member Thomas Ulbrich told the press, “We will make electric vehicles popular and get as many people as possible excited about electric cars. The MEB is one of the most important projects in the history of Volkswagen — a technological milestone, similar to the transition from the Beetle to the Golf.”

“We are making optimal use of the possibilities the electric car has to offer and creating massive economies of scale at the same time. Some 10 million vehicles across the Group will be based on this platform in the first wave alone. The MEB is the economic and technological backbone of the electric car for all,” Ulbrich added.

Building electric cars is one thing. Providing a way to recharge their batteries quite another thing entirely. The MEB platform incorporates fast charging technology developed by Volkswagen that will allow for an 80% charge in just 30 minutes. “The use of a new generation of high-performance batteries begins with the ID models. Thanks to their modular design and the multi-cell format, these batteries can be installed in smaller or larger ID. models,” said Christian Senger, head of e-mobility for Volkswagen. “The ID will be a milestone in technological development. It will be the first fully connected electric car with full everyday utility that millions of people will be able to afford.”

Just when all 10 million electric Volkswagens will be built is left unspecified. The company does say it expects 100,000 ID branded cars to be on the road by the end of 2020, with another 50,000 plug-in hybrid electrics made by Volkswagen joining them. The company says its 10 million vehicle goal is just the “first wave” of its electric vehicle plans without providing specifics about its plans for a potential second wave. But we all have to walk before we run. Volkswagen at least is focusing on doing what it does best — selling lots of cars to lots of people. The more of those cars that are electric, the better for all concerned.

A 100% electric autonomous shuttle will be used on roads in Candiac, Quebec, in a long-term demonstration project. It is a collaboration between the shuttle’s manufacturer, NAVYA, Keolis Canada, the Quebec government, and Propulsion Quebec. From fall to winter, the shuttle will provide free service between the park-and-ride lot and André-J.Côté Park.

There will be a person onboard to answer rider questions and to take over the shuttle if necessary. When winter conditions become rougher, there will be a phase with no riders to continue testing operations.

Autonomous cars are in the works and some Teslas have autopilot assistance, though it seems to be debatable at this point how trustworthy it is, depending upon who you ask. Uber has been experimenting with self-driving cars as well.

A shuttle carrying multiple riders seems to be something different, though. Is the point to eliminate drivers of these types of vehicles permanently? What if a passenger was having a medical emergency like a stroke or heart attack? How would the shuttle be stopped to allow medical personnel to board and help the person?

There’s a self-driving truck startup, but hauling cargo without human drivers seems more feasible, because at least there would not be any human passengers to be harmed by glitches or gaps in the technology’s coverage. However, huge, driverless trucks could still cause accidents if something went wrong.

Naturally, driverless shuttles would transport humans, which means there could be a variety of contingencies, like the medical ones mentioned previously. What do you think about the potential advantages of having self-driving shuttles?

Who better to partake in a new, exclusive interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk than tech-reviewer extraordinaire, Tesla owner, and Project Loveday winner Marques Brownlee. Many of you may also know him as MKBHD. We had a chance to meet Marques at the Model 3 handover event last year and we’re here to say he’s kind, eloquent, and crazy smart. If you watch his tech reviews, this probably comes as no surprise.

Fast forward to recent days and Brownlee took a trip to the Fremont factory to sit down with the busy CEO. Despite Musk’s crazy schedule and the mounting situation in the media, he was able to give MKBHD a good chunk of his time to talk about tech and the future, among other things. Brownlee also notes that he was also able to tour the Fremont facility with Musk. He’ll be releasing a video of that in the near future. As soon as that happens, we’ll share it with our readers.

Without further ado, enjoy the interview. But be warned, there’s a shocker within. Musk hints at a future $25,000 Tesla. Zing! 🧐

Posted by: AGelbert

Two brothers from Switzerland in 2016 presented an electric city car whose design was inspired by the iconic Isetta—right down to the front-mounted door.

Called the Microlino, the car is the result of Oliver and Merlin Ouboter's desire to free up space in cities and promote environmentally friendly mobility in a way that's “fun and cool.”

It seems a lot of people share this vision as the company behind the Microlino, Micro Mobility Systems, a specialist in kickboards and micro scooters, has already racked up 7,200 orders for its electric car, Reuters reported on Thursday.

The Ouboter brothers are currently testing prototypes for the two-seat Microlino and plan to start production this year. Handling the production will be Italian firm Tazzari which has a 50 percent stake in the project.

Right now the Microlino has only been confirmed for Europe, where it is priced from $13,600. 👀 🧐 Many subcompact cars can be had for similar money and the rival Smart ForTwo only costs slightly more. The Microlino will also have to stay on city streets as its 20-horsepower electric motor, borrowed from a forklift , will only see it reach a top speed of 55 mph.

Two battery sizes are offered, both lithium-ion units. The standard battery is an 8.0-kilowatt-hour unit good for 74 miles of range. An available 14.4-kwh battery offers 133 miles. Charging takes about four hours. The figures may change once production starts, however.

What's impressive about the Microlino is that it is only about 8.0 feet in length. It means you could fit three of them parked nose to curb in the space normally taken up by one car. The Microlino also has a handy 10.6 cubic feet of space in the trunk. 👍👍👍

Just 100 examples are scheduled for production this year but the goal is to quickly ramp this up to 5,000 annually. Tazzari has the capacity to build up to 10,000 annually if demand is sufficient.

Posted by: AGelbert

Unmanned operation of the ‘YARA Birkeland’ is planned to start in 2022.

The world’s first autonomous and electric container ship is one step closer to reality with a shipbuilding contract now in signed and sealed for the vessel.

Norwegian technology firm Kongsberg, who is partnering with Yara on the project, announced today that Yara has signed a deal worth NOK 250 million ($25.9 million) with VARD to build the vessel with launch scheduled for early 2020.

The vessel will initially start out with manned operation but quickly move to fully autonomous operation by 2022.

The vessel, named Yara Birkeland, will replace 40,000 truckloads per year, reducing NOx and CO2 emissions in the process. With the shipyard, selected, construction is now set to begin.

“A vessel like Yara Birkelandhas never been built before, and we rely on teaming up with partners with an entrepreneurial mindset and cutting edge expertise. VARD combines experience in customized ship building with leading innovation, and will deliver a game-changing vessel which will help us lower our emissions, and contribute to feeding the world while protecting the planet,” says Svein Tore Holsether, President and CEO of YARA.

Yara Birkeland is scheduled to be delivered from Vard Brevik in Norway in Q1 2020. The hull will be delivered from Vard Braila in Romania.

Roy Reite, CEO and Executive Director of VARD, commented: “We are honored to be chosen as Yara’s partner in this innovative and exciting project. With a longstanding experience in building state-of-the-art and tailor-made specialized vessels, we are excited to be given the opportunity to build the world’s first autonomous and electric-driven container vessel. It is a pleasure to welcome Yara and Kongsberg to VARD, and we look forward to working closely with all parties involved.”

The project has received NOK 133.6 million in support from the Norwegian government enterprise ENOVA. Prime Minister Erna Solberg was present for the signing at the shipyard in Brevik, Norway.

“This is a good example of how Norwegian industry can collaborate to create new solutions and green jobs. YARA, KONGSBERG and VARD have built on their knowledge about technology, logistics and ship building with an ambition to create sustainable innovation together. The result is exciting pioneer projects like this one. I am proud that the Government has supported the development of Yara Birkeland through ENOVA and send my best wishes for the construction,” says Prime Minister Solberg.

Kongsberg is a key partner in the project, responsible for providing the technology including the sensors and integration that will enable remote and autonomous operation.

“Yara Birkeland represents an important next step for the entire maritime industry, representing a major technological and sustainable advancement. The Norwegian maritime cluster has taken a leading position within technology, design, legislation, testing and all other aspects of the development,” says Geir Håøy, CEO of KONGSBERG.

The project was initiated in an effort to improve the logistics at Yara’s Porsgrunn fertilizer plant. Each day, more than 100 diesel truck journeys are needed to transport products from Yara’s Porsgrunn plant to ports in Brevik and Larvik where the company ships products to customers around the world.

With this new autonomous battery-driven ⚡ containership, YARA moves transport from road to sea, thereby reducing noise and dust, improving the safety of local roads, and reducing NOx and CO2 emissions.

Posted by: AGelbert

As you may have heard, one of my questions for Tesla CEO Elon Musk on the last Tesla conference call concerned Tesla Model Y. Elon had previously tweeted that they’d unveil the Model Y on March 15. Given how the Model 3 reservations turned out (I’ll get to that in a moment), I was curious if Tesla was planning a significant departure from that with the Model Y. Elon’s response was that they didn’t know yet how they’d be handling the reservation process this time. Well, specifically, the following was my question and his response:

Me: “And regarding the Model Y, there’s been a lot of questioning if you’re going to have the same process as with Model 3 with reservations, if you’re going to shorten the reservation timeline or if you’re going to have a different process this time around.

Elon: “We haven’t made a final decision on that.”

OK, before we toss Elon some unsolicited suggestions, let’s just drop a handful of key pros and cons about the reservation system used for the Tesla Model 3.

Pros:

Hundreds of thousands of $1,000 reservations = quite a decent no-interest loan.Customers feel more committed to a company and product when they’ve put money on the line (even refundable cash money).

This is a bumper sticker for good press — very good press. (At the beginning.)A reservation list that involves money down helps Tesla to plan production for demand and also tells Tesla where its future customers live (and, thus, where Tesla should build more Superchargers, service centers, etc.).

The long reservation list proves to the world — including other automakers — that, yes, there’s a ton of demand for good electric cars.

Cons:

Separating dudes from their money for a long time can irritate a brother.

If you were #2 in line but ended up being #222,222 to get the car because you’re not as rich as the others (or simply don’t want to fork over $9,000 for battery capacity you don’t need), you might be p i s s e d. (On the other hand, the wait means that you’re more likely to get a high-quality build and you have more time to save up the cash for the car.)

The reservation list sort of doesn’t really matter — unless Tesla changes its production approach with the Model Y, which seems unlikely. (Yeah, you get in the front of the line for whatever variation of the vehicle you want, but unless you’re reserving a very specific version of the vehicle, production will probably be rolling so fast by the time Tesla gets to your variant that it doesn’t really matter.)

You have to manage not only all of the reservations but also all of the cancellations that come along due to impatience, bitterness, or just simply life. You also have to deal with the bad press that comes from such people complaining on social media or to major media outlets.

When it comes down to it, if the base price of the model isn’t actually available for 1½ years after higher-priced versions of the car, yikes, you’ve got a bit of a PR and customer happiness problem on your hands!

So, what to do❓

I didn’t have big pre-conceived notion of how Tesla should handle Model Y reservations and production, but I figured Elon Musk and team must have thought a lot about this, so I was curious to hear what improvements they were planning. But who needs them, #amiright? Without any word from the dude or his crew on probable changes, some members of the Tesla Motors Club forum just jumped in and threw some wonderful ideas in the hat. Perhaps Tesla should just adopt these fanboy/fangirl suggestions.

One forum member, “GaryW,” provided a handful of good ideas, questions, and commentary (as well as some compliments that I’ll leave in the quote for maximum CleanTechnica promotion):

Zach, thanks for all your work on Clean Technica and all your other sites.

He was clear in the Tom Randall interview that Model Y is top of mind after Model 3.

I would appreciate any thoughts about the model Y ‘dilemma’.

Mid-sized SUV’s are among the hottest vehicles in the US, while mid-sized sedans are among the weakest.

I really think the Tesla team was surprised by the number of Model 3 reservations. The demand may have caused them to push Model 3 production harder than they would have otherwise. This push was not all positive.

What if they recreated this with the Model Y? Since the size of the market is so much bigger, is it possible they get 1,000,000–2,000,000 reservations? Or even more? I’m thinking they don’t want another trip to Hell, either with money or manufacturing.

So maybe they are mulling over their options, and don’t have a plan yet? Here are a few changes I could see them contemplating:

1) Announce the car after they are farther along? If the care is closer to production, this could reduce a number of risks.

2) Announce a higher end Model Y first? They could always bring out a lower end model whenever it makes sense. They get a lot of unwanted press about the lack of the $35K availability for the Model 3.

3) Ask for a higher deposit? This could reduce the craziness of many people getting in line to get in line.

Great points, eh?

Point #1 is something I actually assumed would be the case, until Elon tweeted about showing the car in March, which seems like a similar timeframe in the development process as with the Model 3. But maybe Elon could walk that back and delay the Model Y showing. (Or maybe March 15 is indeed the perfect date for that.)

As far as #2, I totally agree — don’t even mention the expected eventual base price until you’re close to producing it. It’s not worth the headaches and it can actually be deceiving to some customers who don’t follow Tesla obsessively.

I think I prefer #3 — asking for reservations of $5,000, for example — over $1,000 reservations or not asking for reservations at all. It helps to get a sense of how many people will really buy the vehicle and where they live, and if people are able and willing to put down $5,000 for an indefinite period of time, they better understand the risks and they will almost certainly be ready to buy the car when it becomes available.

“Words of HABIT” took some of those questions and suggestions a step further, contributing the following (note that “MY” = “Model Y” and “M3” = “Model 3,” not “BMW M3,” which is obviously old and boring news):

My thoughts on MY:

֍ No refundable reservations in favour of non-refundable deposits, and only accept for premium orders to start (refer to next point).

֍ Acknowledge upfront LR and Dual Motor and Premium Package and Performance to be produced first. (it will happen anyway.)

֍ Once the worldwide demand has been sustained for premium MY orders — say, 3 years after start of production — only then offer the base version SR MY to keep ramping production higher.

֍ Tesla should not even comment on SR MY base price as this traps them into a potentially far lower price that what the market is willing to pay, which is what is now happening with the M3 SR base model.

While I never though M3 would bite into MS or MX sales (we now know the opposite to be true, M3 increasing MS & MX sales due to cross selling), I do believe MY will bite into M3 sales. I for one would have preferred small SUV over a Sedan type and would have changed my order in a heartbeat had MY been available now. If Tesla follows the above points, they can ensure continued increase in M3 sales for the foreseeable future and keep MY as a premium product, which is really no different than MS is to the MX now. IMHO anyone hoping for a $35k base price for SR MY will be sadly mistaken. Law of supply and demand, and demand will outstrip supply for the foreseeable future.

I love these ideas, especially the suggestion to take reservations/deposits for certain trims in order of planned production. I also think Tesla should limit such reservations/deposits to whichever continent(s) the car will first be available on. (In other words, if the Model Y won’t be shipped to Antarctica until 2025, don’t let people or intellectually gifted penguins living there reserve the car until closer to that time.)

It has been a painfully long wait for people in Europe (I was living there) who are sitting with their Model 3 reservations unfulfilled while cars roll into tens of thousands of American and Canadian homes, and I imagine it’s even worse in places like Australia and Antarctica. Overall, I just figure the upfront cash isn’t worth the hard feelings that inevitably develop. (Also, I’m a little sick of reading gripes from Europeans and Australians waiting on their cars — no offense, eager customers. :p)

Any other thoughts on how Tesla should proceed with Model Y reservations, demonstrations, and communications?

Check out more Tesla Model Y stories to dive further into Tesla’s next big thing.

Agelbert COMMENT: I have some food for thought in regard to the Model Y.

The SUV is a marketing invention of the automotive industry to get around the environmental requirements imposed, believe or not (one of the few things Reagan did right), by the U.S. Government around 1988 to clean up exhaust and improve mileage. Passenger cars were regulated and trucks, heavy or light, were not. SO, the bright bulbs at Ford and othe car makers put their clever, scheming heads together 😈 and came up with "sport" utility vehicle in the (of course 😉) "light truck" category. Ford Bronco (first SUV) gasoline 🦕 guzzler 🐷 with trailer

The result was that Americans used MORE gasoline to move a heavier vehicle and pollute the air even MORE than before. 🤬

There is absolutely nothing "sporty" about a truck with some branding, but most people bought into it because they actually believed they would be safer in an SUV, never mind the fact that the people in the car that the SUV hits, or is hit by, will be more severely injured, if not killed outright. 👎

Tesla, stop with the SEXY branding baloney already. We-the-people want a Model Y that is an E-van 🌟, not an E-suv 🐷.

You can use E-van chassis to make the E-pickup truck too.

Elon, put a passenger E-van 🌟 out there. Make windowless models for businesses as well. Think about what SUVs were invented for. It was a bad idea from the point of the environment and continues to be a bad idea.

For that matter, an E-van with an E-trailer (no motor but addtional batteries in the trailer) attachment option would take care of ALL pickup truck requirements. A plus of having a trailer with batteries is that you only use it when you need it, saving a lot of energy and, if the need arose for the E-van to make a long range trip, use the empty attached trailer as a range extender.

Following a hugely interesting presentation on Mate’s “rimaculate perception” I got the chance at EV Momentum to ask a few questions about the man, the mission, and the methodology that brought him to this point.

A well informed audience was also invited to pose a few questions on such things as strategy, and the Porsche investment that had been announced only 24 hours earlier.

If you have an interest in EV I’m certain you’ll enjoy what he has to say!

An 18 m-long, 8 m-wide, 120-passenger aluminum catamaran built by Metaltec Naval in Cantabria, Spain, ECOCAT has an integrated propulsion system from Torqeedo of Starnberg, Germany, relying 100% on its solar-battery system with no auxiliary internal combustion engine.

“It has two 50 kW Torqeedo Deep Blue motors driven by eight 30.5 kWh BMW i3 high-voltage marinized lithium ion batteries, four in each hull,” a Torqeedo spokeswoman told NauticExpo e-magazine. “Power is generated by 120 photovoltaic solar panels on the vessel’s roof. To maximize that area, Metaltec designed a set of deployable and retractable pneumatic wings.”

“Top speed is 9.7 knots—normal operating speed is 7 knots—and the vessel’s cruising range is eight hours running on batteries without sunshine. ECOCAT will go into service on Spain’s Mediterranean coast and the operator expects to average six 13 km trips daily.”

The vessel is the first of Metaltec’s new ECOBOAT series of environment-friendly aluminium vessels. The company also has designs for a monohull solar-electric boat as well as a twin-hull hybrid vessel.

You don’t get much props for predicting something after it happened. This is sort of lame: “I knew that would happen. I didn’t say it, but I knew it.” So, I’m going out on a short limb and am making a prediction here in the open while the market remains irrational.

Well, to be honest, you don’t get much props for predicting something that someone else already predicted either. I’m just going on some simple, direct statements from a person who has shown for years that he’s exceedingly honest and often provides hints of things he knows are coming months in advance. He has also accomplished — several times — things that experts said were “impossible.” The task at hand here is not at all impossible.

That said, the stock market is acting as though Tesla CEO Elon Musk is either an idiot or a liar. In the age of a reality TV president, I guess this is par for the course, but it is shocking me yet again. If you’re just skimming the headlines and major media commentary about Tesla this week, you may well think Musk’s plan to take Tesla private is a dishonest, impractical, highly unlikely scheme. Perhaps you even think Musk is going to jail, just because the SEC is doing one of its basic jobs — very likely nothing more than some simple due diligence. Headline after headline makes it seem like a serious SEC investigation is growing and growing, but then I look into the details and nothing notable has changed. From what I have read, they are checking with Musk to make sure he does indeed have financing secured (as he tweeted) to take Tesla private. Given that he followed that up with the statement that all that was really a question mark at this point was whether shareholders voted for the plan — that doesn’t sound like someone I know to be honest fudging the facts.

So, no, I’m not concerned that Musk was serious. My first assumption isn’t that Musk was manipulating the market and has no one lined up to finance taking Tesla private. I don’t beat animals, dead or alive, but to further emphasize a point that I think doesn’t need to be emphasized: Musk has said for years that Tesla would probably be better as a private company, and he reportedly tried to convince Japan’s SoftBank last year about helping to make this happen. In other words, the man has been working on this for a while. This is not a joke. The chance that he did indeed get enough of a financial commitment to bring this proposal to the Tesla board of directors and the public is close to 100%, in my humble opinion. If you absolutely think that’s not true, you may as well skip the rest of this article.

I’ll get to Tesla short sellers in a moment, but first, let’s have a look at who owns Tesla. Thanks to some research and calculation work from Maarten Vinkhuyzen, this is how Tesla ownership breaks down (known, non-institutional shareholders are in red):

Now, let me be clear — there’s very little info out there about how these institutional investors view the offer. Even for large shareholders, like Baillie Gifford, that think Tesla is worth far more than $420, it’s unclear if they have limitations that would prevent them from carrying over a large portion of their shares in a private Tesla. Furthermore, some may simply prefer the public accountability and stock market pricing system — even if that means a lot of FUD bringing the brand down.

As it goes, experts in the field who I respect seem to be throwing their hands up and just guesstimating that 50% of those institutional shares would transfer over to private shares. If you add that onto Elon Musk’s 20%, Tencent’s 5%, and the Saudi Arabia Wealth Fund’s 2%, you’re at about 54% of the shares. If you cautiously (I’d say pessimistically) consider that half of the remaining retail investors are interested in going private, that’s 64%.

Now, this is not an evaluation of whether shareholders will vote for Tesla to go private. Again, perhaps many of those institutional investors would rather Tesla stay public. However, if you assume that the shareholders do vote to go private, there’s another very interesting matter to consider here. Actually, this is a matter that could be highly relevant even before the vote.

As it stands, there is an enormous short position on Tesla. Approximately 35 million Tesla shares are “loaned” out to shorts/short sellers. Basically, shorts have “borrowed” the stock from a shareholder and then loaned it out to someone else, with a commitment to buy it back at some undetermined point in the future in order to give it back to its rightful owner. (See our extensive articles on short selling and Tesla shorts on the bottom of this article for more info on this topic.)

A “short squeeze” is sort of, kind of like a “run on the bank” (which you’ve probably learned about from It’s a Wonderful Life). Basically, if a company you’re shorting has strongly positive news, it would be smart of you to immediately buy back the share you borrowed and lent out. The stock price is likely to jump up, and if you wait too long, you’re going to have to buy that share back for much more than you lent it out.

The Tesla [TSLA] stock price jumped up rapidly earlier this week when there was news of the Saudi Arabia wealth fund investment and then more so when Musk tweeted about potentially taking Tesla private at $420/share. But a couple of interesting things happened. First, trading was halted for a couple of hours. This is standard in the situation we were in, but the point is that it gave everyone some time to think about the news and decide what to do. The much more interesting thing is that by and large short sellers by and large didn’t cover — they didn’t start buying back shares they loaned out.

This gets us back to the top of this article. Short sellers 😈 👹 didn’t buy the news. They seemingly didn’t believe that Musk would take Tesla private and that he had financing lined up (they’ve been claiming he lied about that). Some others seemed to think $420 was a ceiling for their losses anyway, but that theory doesn’t appear to be grounded in reality from what I’ve read. We’ll get to that in a second.

Some longs have added onto their holdings as well. (Full disclosure: With my meager opportunity for this, I was one of them.) However, many longs also seem skeptical that the deal is going through. They want more evidence before buying in at $350–370. Given that there have likely been hundreds of mainstream media articles and TV talking heads scaring people about a potential SEC violation and ruminating on the slim possibility (which they consider not so slim) that Elon Musk lied about securing financing and there’s no way that Tesla is going private, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. (Even normally pro-Tesla tech sites like ArsTechnica — an early inspiration for CleanTechnica — have been spreading the fear, uncertainty, and doubt.)

So, now we get to predictions. Here’s the thing I think is going to happen (but am not providing as investment advice!):

I, like Gene Munster, think that shareholders will vote to take Tesla private (or delist it if that’s what we’re actually talking about). Since some major shareholders think Tesla is worth far more than $420/share and since this will be the last chance for many people to buy into Tesla — for a long time at least (since it is going to be much, much harder to buy shares in private Tesla than in public Tesla) — I think the share price will jump. People who don’t plan to hold onto the stock would hold at least until $420 since Tesla would cash out their shares at that price.

Meanwhile, short sellers will finally get the message: Yes, Tesla is going off the market, and they need to buy back the shares they loaned out in order to return them to their rightful owners. Furthermore, they should finally understand that $420 is not a cap on the buyback price for them. If the stock price jumps to $1000 because people value private shares in Tesla that high, then they still need to buy back the shares they don’t really own in order to return them to owners.

Furthermore, if the price gets up that high, the privatization deal may get dropped or have to be revised. $420 is not a ceiling. In fact, it’s more of a floor for short sellers if the deal moves forward.

So, we are back to the point that approximately 35 million TSLA shares are shorted right now. If there’s a sprint for the door, those short sellers will be fighting to buy shares back — and shareholders can wait as long as they like to sell them back. If they think the share price will go up to $500, they can wait till then. Furthermore, if they value the private shares at $2000 each, they may have no interest in playing games and selling to shorts until the price is $2001. Institutional investors surely understand this. Many of the retail investors understand this. Who the heck is going to sell a short a share for $420? You must be high to think that’s going to happen in a large volume.

The most epic short squeeze in history seems to be a Volkswagen short squeeze that happened in 2008. The short interest in the stock before this happened was approximately 13%. The short squeeze resulted in the stock price increasing multiple times over at its peak (see that link above for details). Approximately 20% of Tesla shares are shorted right now. 👀

Perhaps the shorts with billions and billions on the line don’t want to believe the possibility of a short squeeze. Perhaps they are so obsessed with the idea that Elon Musk is a liar and a fraud that they can’t believe the simple tweets he sent earlier this week represent exactly what they say. If they are wrong, holy hell in a hot air ballon — this is going to be the most epic short squeeze in history. 🧐

I watched that video after writing this article. Even if you read the full piece above, I recommend watching it. A tip of the hat to JRP3 for sharing it.

Update: This article was updated shortly after publishing to fix a couple of errors.

Related stories:

Our Tesla Bankwuptcy archives 👍👍👍

The Tesla Short Thesis Just Collapsed — CNN, CNBC, Forbes, & Business Insider Are Still Lost In ShortsvilleTesla Model 3 — 7th/8th Best Selling Car In USA — In A Class Of Its OwnTesla ExecutesHow I Learned To Stop Worrying About My Tesla Shares & Love The Short Sellers (Part 1)How I Learned To Stop Worrying About My Tesla Shares & Love The Short Sellers (Part 2)The Fascinating Tesla Short StoryStormy Weather In Shortville Will Soon Look Like A Day On The Beach — Epic TSLA Tsunami ComingComing Tesla Short Squeeze? Will Stock Go “Supernova” In 3 Weeks? Elon Implies It WillA Sinister Cellar Of The TSLA Short Story?Jim Chanos’s Anti-Tesla Short Seller Arguments Debunked (Video)Is The Possibility Of Perception Perversion The Real Reason Jim Chanos Is Short Tesla?Elon Musk vs TSLA Shorts Is Personal, Not BusinessTesla [TSLA] Short Sellers Have Lost $1 Billion In 2018

Full disclosure: I am long TSLA. Because, duh.😀

Posted by: AGelbert

We’ve heard about how the Koch network 🦕🦖 is attacking public transit, and last year targeted electric cars. Now, it seems there is a similar sort of campaign afoot to combine those two and go after electric buses.

The timing of this makes sense: LA, NYC, and San Francisco are committing to 100% EV bus fleets, while other major cities like Chicago and Dallas are greening their fleets. Globally, the Chinese city of Shenzhen has a full EV fleet, with over 16,000 ⚡buses. 👍

Transitioning the US bus fleet to EVs couldsave more than 2 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. As a July UCS study shows, regardless of the electricity source, EV ⚡ buses are cleaner.

And as the good EV bus news comes, so must also come the pushback. Over the last couple of weeks, the conservative but generally-not-crazy Washington Examiner ran four pieces, three in quick succession, attacking electric buses. One was by Ross Marchand, of the Koch’s Taxpayers Protection Alliance , and the other three by a commentary writer for the Examiner, Philip Wegmann 👹.

The four pieces have barely enough rhetoric between them to scrape together one argument. Marchand claims in his piece that the buses’ expense is a problem, but neglects to mention that the fuel, maintenance and health savings from an EV replacing a diesel bus[/color] is well worth the initial cost, leading to a net savings. He also claims that EVs may be dirtier than conventional ones, citing the Koch’s Manhattan Institute. This, simply put, is false. Particularly for busses.

Wegmann offers even less in the way of substance than Marchand. In one of his pieces, he implies electric buses are unreliable because of some problems between the headlights and radios on a grand total of four buses. In another, he calls the city of Santa Monica stupid for buying electric buses, decrying “the lunatic fanaticism” of liberal cities that think it’s important to provide public transit, even if it’s not popular.

But in the first example, published in late July, Wegmann hits on some reality. In a piece that starts by proclaiming that “the wheels on the bus roll toward communism in Los Angeles,” Wegmann 😈 rehashes a legit LA Times story from back in May about problems with the Los Angeles EV Bus fleet. However, problems with one particular company’s subpar EV bus performance is hardly an indictment of the entire industry.

Unless, of course, you’re worried the success of the industry will harm you, like the Kochs are.

And Wegmann, as it turns out, is something of a Koch acolyte. His Twitter bio notes he’s a fellow of the Steamboat Institute, which is “a 501(c)(3) educational organization promoting Liberty, Free Markets, and the Founding Principles of the United States.” Though there are no obvious Koch-funding links, the Steamboat Institute is a member of the Koch’s State Policy Network.In Wegmann’s bio on Steamboat’s site, we see that he was a fellow of the Koch’s America’s Future Foundation writing program.

As for his writing career, Wegmann appears to have gotten his start in 2010, when he won a college scholarship from the NRA, then won an essay contest by Fox’s John Stossel and featuring pardoned felon Dinesh D’Souza. Then he wrote a couple things for his college paper, like “What texting hath wrought,” but was apparently “lucky enough to stumble into a job shortly” after graduating.

It looks like that job was writing at the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation publication, the Daily Signal, in 2015. Then he went to the Federalist for a few months, then back to the Signal, then stepped up to the Examiner.

To be clear, we have absolutely no evidence that Wegmann went on this anti-EV bus kick at the Koch’s insistence. But that’s sort of the point of the Koch’s strategy when it comes to blurring the lines between journalist and Koch operative. After getting trained by the Koch’s writing program, starting his career at the Koch’s Daily Signal, and enjoying a fellowship at a Koch-adjacent group, Wegmann probably doesn’t need marching orders to toe the Koch party line.

Then again, news that Wichita, Kansas was buying EV buses broke just three days before Wegmann’s first EV bus hit piece.

Now the dawn may be breaking on that tomorrow with the small, crowd-funded Sono Sion solar car in Germany.

The company has raised enough online funding to begin testing, according to a Reuters report carried by Autoblog.

The car is mainly battery-powered, but the roof, doors, and hood are covered with 330 solar cells. The battery has a total range of 155 miles between charges.

Sono Sion solar charged electric car

Sono believes the solar cells can provide about 18 miles of that range a day in the summertime (such as the heatwave blanketing Europe this summer). In the winter, the solar range could drop to as little as three miles a day, but drivers can still plug the car in and get the full 155 miles of range.

The Sion's solar panels are embedded in the car's polycarbonate body panels.

Sono's founder and CEO Laurin Hahn says the car could be a good solution for apartment dwellers who don't have a place to plug it in.

Posted by: AGelbert

After making our Tesla Model 3 True cost of ownership video, we were amazed at all the insightful comments. So we decided we’d take a list of all the top comments, and cover them one by one, starting with a comment we get quite a bit: “You can’t compare the Model 3 at $35,000 because you can’t get a Model 3 for $35,000!”

Clearly, this is an important topic, especially when talking about the first mass production, affordable Tesla. So the question is, is the $35,000 Model 3 a lie? Or can you actually buy one with any hope of one day seeing it on your driveway? To answer this question, let’s first look at your purchase options when considering a Tesla Model 3.

For $35,000 you get the vaunted base model in any color you want, so long as its black. Yes, any other color will cost you $1000. But before you get flashbacks of hand cranking the windows and being without A/C, you should know the base model is pretty well equipped. It comes with one-touch power windows all around, the 15” touch display which is years ahead of anything else and even wifi. The base model comes with a 50 kWh battery pack good for 220 miles of range, it’ll do 0-60 MPH in 5.6 seconds with a top speed of 130 MPH.

Now if you want to go further, you’ll have to shell out an additional $9,000 for the long-range option. This increases the battery pack from 50 to 75 kWh and increases driving range from 220 to 310 miles. And with more batteries to draw from, the 0-60 time is reduced to 5.1 seconds, and the top speed is increased to 140 MPH.

Next up is the Autopilot features. The first tier is the “Enhanced Autopilot” package which costs $5,000. On top of more ubiquitous features like forward collision mitigation, or blind spot monitoring, with this Package, your Tesla, will be able to change lanes for you, navigate freeway interchanges, and even exit and park at your destination. This upgrade includes a lot of the hardware and sensors needed for a fully autonomous car. But if you actually want your car to be fully autonomous, you’ll have to get the Enhanced Autopilot package, and then add the $3,000 Full self-driving package.

They aren’t even taking reservations yet for the base model car, and they expect wait times of 6-9 months. So is the $35,000 base model a lie, well not. But you’d better be prepared to wait until probably mid 2019 to get one. This might all seem a bit backward, delivering the promised $35,000 EV last, after all the other models, but fear not, Elon Musk knows what he’s doing.

Remember that Tesla’s software and machine learning for self-driving cars helps them on all their platforms, not just the Model 3. The same self-driving technology can apply to the Model X or the Tesla Semi, so adding it to a Model 3, doesn’t really directly cost them anything. In fact, it helps them, since they’ll have more cars on the road collecting data, to feed their algorithms, making them even better.

If we first consider that battery production is the limiting factor in the Model 3, then a $35,000 base model would need 50kWh worth of batteries and yield Tesla just $2,000 in profit or a profit of $40 / kWh of battery required. Compare that with an extended range car with premium package and autopilot, that needs 75 kWh of batteries, but yields a profit of $15,000. That’s a profit of $200 / kWh. So if batteries are the limiting factor, it makes sense that Tesla would want to make as much money as they can up front, to help further the production process. Inversely, if there was a surplus of batteries, and the production bottleneck was caused by some other part, then it would still behoove Tesla to create more extended range cars, to use as many batteries as they have for higher profits, rather than having them sit around, waiting on cars.

So if you’re a fan of Tesla, and really want that base model 3, relax, it’s coming. Elon has worked through a lot of sleepless nights, and it finally looks like Tesla is out of production hades for the Model 3. And if you’re one of the early Model 3 adopters who’s purchased a highly appointed car, well bravo, you’re quite literally keeping this one of a kind company afloat.

Tesla is sure to make headlines, and lately, it has been a mixed bag, of production targets and fake news about skipping crucial final stage safety tests.

You can Help Support Two Bit da Vinci by following our affiliate links. It's free, and we get a commission to help us keep doing what we love. Two Bit da Vinci is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Thank You,

Chris & Ricky

Posted by: AGelbert

At 12:28 PM on August 7th Tesla issued a bombshell announcement via Twitter, that they are thinking about taking the company private. This has some very significant implications, and we thought we’d take a moment to talk about their reasons, and what this means for Tesla believers, and shareholders alike.

As of August 7th, Tesla shares were trading at around $379, and at a price of $420, would put Tesla’s market cap at $71.3 Billion dollars. He revealed all this information on twitter and you’re probably wondering if that’s somehow illegal, and well, it’s certainly unprecedented! The argument Musk and Tesla will make is that he has 22M twitter followers, his tweet was seen by many, and simultaneously broadcast over the financial news within the hour. So it isn’t like he’s secretly told a select few in private, offering some kind of insider information. But this should prove interesting, to say the least. Also, this would be the ultimate nail in the coffin of all the Tesla short sellers, who’ve lost billions since their Q2 earnings were released, and would never give them a chance to win any of it back.

So naturally after trading for the stock resumed after a brief pause, it has begun to surge closer to what investors are thinking is a buy out price of $420. It is important to note, that nothing has happened yet. Elon made it clear a final decision would hinge upon the votes of the shareholders. Be sure to subscribe, we’ll keep you updated on the news at it happens.

So why would they do this, why take a publicly traded company private? Let’s break down these reasons into a few categories.

The first category has to address the high volatility, speculation, quarterly focused earnings, and threat of short sellers. A publicly traded company is subject to quarterly earnings reports, which can send stock prices soaring or crashing. Q2 Earnings of Facebook, though pretty good, missed some analyst expectations, especially around new active users, and this sent their stock price crashing by 20%. That was a record for the most value a company has every lost on a single day. This is troubling for Tesla, especially when their vision looks far into the horizon, to years, and decades, not month to month. If you’ve followed Elon on Twitter, you know how vocal he’s been about the fear mongers spreading Fear uncertainty and doubt, and taking Tesla private, would insulate them from all that bad publicity.

This makes a lot of sense for Elon, because he’s already proved this model once, with Space X. Space X manages a private fund for their shareholders, and is also a employee owned company. Space X needs to spend millions in R&D, and can’t really expect to turn profits on a quarterly scale. This is the same reason NASA is a government agency, and not a publicly traded company. It’s important to note that Space X and Tesla will still be two completely different companies, with different management structures and funding.

The greatest risk public companies face, is the need to meet expectations in the short term. This drives decisions around the innovation of a product, vs. quickness to market. It facilitates mass hirings and firings, rather than slow and steady growth. It also explains why some well established brands seem complacent and unwilling to take on risk. It works for some companies like Apple, who are officially a Trillion Dollar Company as of August 2018. But Apple has a very simple product line, a phone or a watch, and spends very little on R&D, compared to the scale of something like Tesla. Tesla is building Gigafactories, and doing things that many believed impossible just 10 years ago.

Musk fears the obsession of quarterly profits will deter them from the very long term vision which was and will always be to “Accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.” Quarterly profits are a big reason why established car manufacturers aren’t chasing Electric vehicles. Because to do so would require quarter after quarter of losses, due to increases in R&D spending. Daimler AG, the parent company of Mercedes Benz, knows this all to well, as their stock has been on the decline in 2018, due to their larger investment in the EV future.

For Musk, it’s incredibly simple, he wants to change the world. That clarity actually makes this monumental decision incredibly easy. He wants to do what’s right, and doesn’t want to answer to investors every few months. This moonshot approach is sure to be risky, because now private investors aren’t required to get quarterly earnings reports. The investors who follow Tesla into being a private company, will be the true die hard fans, and those who truly believe in the company. The road has been long for Tesla, and there is now a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. They’re making thousands of cars a week, and are already outselling other luxury car makers.